The influence of the anatomical layer of breast implants placement on the results of augmentation mammoplasty (meta-analysis)

N.P. Korableva

Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

N.S. Romanenkov

Medical Information and Analytical Center

Ya.V. Tsekhmistro

St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

A.A. Nekrasov

St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

A.G. Grigoryan

St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

The influence of the anatomical layer of breast implants placement on the results of augmentation mammoplasty (meta-analysis)

Authors:

N.P. Korableva, N.S. Romanenkov, Ya.V. Tsekhmistro, A.A. Nekrasov, A.G. Grigoryan

More about the authors

Journal: Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2021;(3): 85‑91

DOI: 10.17116/plast.hirurgia202103185

Downloaded: 148

To cite this article:

Korableva NP, Romanenkov NS, Tsekhmistro YaV, Nekrasov AA, Grigoryan AG. The influence of the anatomical layer of breast implants placement on the results of augmentation mammoplasty (meta-analysis). Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2021;(3):85‑91. (In Russ., In Engl.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/plast.hirurgia202103185

Доказательная гастроэнтерология: pro et contra

Актуальные вопросы педиатрической практики

Использование инфографики авторами научных работ

Close metadata

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence of complications and redo surgeries depending on anatomical layer of breast implant placement in patients undergoing augmentation mammoplasty.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

English-language manuscripts published in the PubMed/MEDLINE database for the period from January 01, 2010 to December 20, 2020 were selected. The following data were analyzed: surname of the first author, year of publication, study design, sample size, mean age and body mass index, follow-up, complications (infections, hematomas, capsular contracture, implant migration) and freedom from redo surgery. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were determined for each parameter. Statistical heterogeneity of publications was evaluated using χ² and I² criteria. Differences were significant at p-value<0.05.

RESULTS

Data on 17644 cases of aesthetic augmentation mammoplasty were analyzed. Silicone implants were placed under pectoralis major muscle in 12989 cases. Subglandular or subfascial placement was applied in 4655 patients. Incidence of surgical site infection, hematoma and freedom from redo surgery were similar after subpectoral and prepectoral breast implant placement. Capsular contracture rate was 5.3 times higher for prepectoral implantation. Breast implant displacement was 7.2 times more common in subpectoral group.

CONCLUSION

Subpectoral and prepectoral implantation in breast augmentation has advantages and disadvantages regarding postoperative complications. Potential risks of complications depending on breast implant placement should be carefully explained prior to surgery.

Keywords:

augmentation mammoplasty

breast replacement

complications of augmentation mammoplasty

capsular contracture

surgical site infection

implant displacement

hematoma

Authors:

N.P. Korableva

Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

N.S. Romanenkov

Medical Information and Analytical Center

Ya.V. Tsekhmistro

St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

A.A. Nekrasov

St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

A.G. Grigoryan

St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

Received:

23.03.2021

Accepted:

08.04.2021

List of references:

Adams WP Jr, Afrooz PN, Stuzin JM. Tissue-Based Planning and Technique for Breast Augmentation with Anatomical Implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(6):1634‐1636. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000005663
Wan D, Rohrich RJ. Modern Primary Breast Augmentation: Best Recommendations for Best Results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(6):933‐946. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000005050
Horsnell JD, Searle AE, Harris PA. Intra-operative techniques to reduce the risk of capsular contracture in patients undergoing aesthetic breast augmentation — A review. Surgeon. 2017;15(5):282‐289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2017.03.001
Panczel G, Munhoz AM. A Simple and Low-cost Method of Sleeve to Insert Silicone Gel Breast Implants. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(9): e2389. PMID: 31942375. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002389
ISAPS international survey on aesthetic/cosmetic procedures performed in 2018. Accessed May 25, 2020. https://www.isaps.org/medical-professionals/isaps-global-statistics
McGuire P, Reisman NR, Murphy DK. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture, malposition, and late seroma in subjects receiving natrelle 410 form-stable silicone breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000002837
Calobrace MB, Stevens WG, Capizzi PJ, Cohen R, Godinez T, Beckstrand M. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 10-year sientra study using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:20-28. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000004351
Benito-Ruiz J, Manzano ML, Salvador-Miranda L. Five year outcomes of breast augmentation with form-stable implants: periareolar vs transaxillary. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:46-56. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjw154
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(10):1006-1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
Shi H, Cao C, Li X, Chen L, Li S. A retrospective study of primary breast augmentation: recovery period, complications and patient satisfaction. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(10):18737‐18743. PMID: 26770489.
Spear SL, Murphy DK (Allergan Silicone Breast Implant U.S. Core Clinical Study Group). Natrelle round silicone breast implants: core study results at 10 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:1354-1361. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000000021
Khan UD. Muscle-splitting, subglandular, and partial submuscular augmentation mammoplasties: a 12-year retrospective analysis of 2026 primary cases. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2013;37:290-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-0026-8
Stutman RL, Codner M, Mahoney A, Amei A. Comparison of breast augmentation incisions and common complications. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2012; 36:1096-1104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-9918-x
Stevens WG, Nahabedian MY, Calobrace MB, Harrington JL, Capizzi PJ, Cohen R, d’Incelli RC, Beckstrand M. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 5-year Sientra study analysis using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1115-1123. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000435317.76381.68
Shen Z, Chen X, Sun J, Chiu C, Yu Y, Lin X, Zhang Z, Xu J. A comparative assessment of three planes of implant placement in breast augmentation: A Bayesian analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019;72(12):1986‐1995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.09.010
Egeberg A, Sorensen JA. The impact of breast implant location on the risk of capsular contraction. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;77(2):255-259. https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0000000000000227
Bachour Y, Bargon CA, de Blok CJM, Ket JCF, Ritt MJPF, Niessen FB. Risk factors for developing capsular contracture in women after breast implant surgery: A systematic review of the literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(9):e29‐e48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.05.022
Headon H, Kasem A, Mokbel K. Capsular Contracture after Breast Augmentation: An Update for Clinical Practice. Arch Plast Surg. 2015;42(5): 532‐543. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2015.42.5.532
Yalanis GC, Liu EW, Cheng HT. Efficacy and safety of povidone-iodine irrigation in reducing the risk of capsular contracture in aesthetic breast augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015; 136:687-698. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000001576
Li S, Chen L, Liu W, Mu D, Luan J. Capsular contracture rate after breast augmentation with periareolar versus other two (inframammary and transaxillary) incisions: a meta-analysis. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2018;42:32-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0965-1
Tanner B. Low rate of capsular contracture in a series of 214 consecutive primary and revision breast augmentations using microtextured implants. JPRAS Open. 2017;15:66‐73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2017.10.007
Jewell ML, Adams WP Jr. Betadine and Breast Implants. Aesthet Surg J. 2018;38(6):623‐626. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy044
Stevens WG, Calobrace MB, Alizadeh K, Zeidler KR, Harrington JL, d’Incelli RC. Ten-year core study data for Sientra’s Food and Drug Administration-approved round and shaped breast implants with cohesive silicone gel. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:7-19. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000004350
Kaartinen I, Sunela K, Alanko J, Hukkinen K, Karjalainen-Lindsberg M-L, Svarvar C. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma from diagnosis to treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:1385-1392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2017.05.021
Shustov A, Soma L. Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma: Contemporary Concepts and Optimal Management. Cancer Treat Res. 2019;176:127-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99716-2_6
Laurent C, Haioun C, Brousset P, Gaulard P. New insights into breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Curr Opin Oncol. 2018; 30(5):292-300. https://doi.org/10.1097/cco.0000000000000476

Close metadata